P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science at Lehigh University

Professor, wife sentenced on convictions of defrauding NASA

A university professor in Pennsylvania has been sentenced to a year and a day in prison on a conviction of defrauding NASA by letting graduate students and researchers do all the work on a $700,000 project.

U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle III also ordered Yujie Ding on Wednesday to pay a fine of $3,000 and restitution of $72,000. His wife, Yuliya Zotova, was sentenced to three months in prison.

Authorities said the Lehigh University engineering professor and his wife told NASA that their startup company ArkLight would develop a cutting-edge sensor used to track climate change. Instead, prosecutors alleged, they used the company “as a front to funnel federal grant money to themselves for research performed by students and others.”

Lehigh University professor, wife sentenced in scheme to defraud NASA

A former professor at Lehigh University and his wife were sentenced to federal prison Wednesday for a scheme in which the pair defrauded NASA out of $72,000.

According to information released by the United States Attorney’s Office, Yujie Ding, of Center Valley, was sentenced in federal court to a year and a day in prison, while his wife, and co-defendant, Yuliya Zotova, was sentenced to three months in prison.

The couple was convicted in November 2015 on five counts of wire fraud.

The release noted that U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle III also ordered the pair to pay a $3,000 fine and restitution in the amount of $72,000 after defrauding NASA’s Small Business Innovation Research Program.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, from August 2009 through July 2010, the pair submitted proposals to NASA seeking research funding by claiming that their business, ArkLight, was doing research and subcontracting work to Lehigh University where Ding was a professor.

Instead, an investigation found that the pair used ArkLight “as a front to funnel federal grant money to themselves for research performed by students and others working under Ding’s supervision at his university lab.”

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the defendants sent invoices to NASA for research that, a jury found, ArkLight had not participated in.

Related

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (1)

Amber

To bad they just missed jailed EPA Manager Beale who apparently has served his sentence .
They will have to create a whole new Climate Criminal category to keep up as this massive fraud unravels .
No big tanks yet but stay tuned the science fiction will get settled .

Amber

Why would virtually no change to Antarctic ice in over 100 years be a surprise at all .
Whether it’s minus – 60 or minus – 58 certainly we know it is fricking cold and it is not about to thaw . Throw a few volcanos open below the surface and a part of it might
but if that is considered caused by climate change the science fiction is bigger than
we know .
The question is how much will the Antarctic grow by over the next 1000 years ?

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).

John West

A lot of what Mr. Bright-Paul is saying is true but often not in the way he thinks. The GHE for example does indeed not heat the Earth, technically it slows the cooling. It is hardly absurd and predisposes no such thing as a rigid structure in the sky.

Energy from the Sun warms the surface which in turn warms the atmosphere primarily through convection as is said, however, the surface also loses energy (cools) via radiant heat loss in the form of IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by GHG’s that excites various vibration nodes of GHG molecules which does not directly increase the temperature of the gas because the temperature of a gas is a measure of kinetic energy only, not vibrational energy. This vibrational energy may be emitted as IR or it may be transmitted through collisions to other molecules in the air possibly increasing temperature. The direction of IR emitted from such a molecule is essential random, therefore, some of that IR will invariably be directed toward the Earth. That “downwelling” IR reduces the net radiant transfer of energy from the Earth. For illustration purposes, let’ say the ground is at a temperature that radiates at 600 W/m^2 but the downwelling radiation is 300 W/m^2, therefore the net radiant energy loss of the ground would be 300 W/m^2 instead of 600 W/m^2 therefore slowing the cooling of the ground even though the ground still transfers more heat to the atmosphere through conduction the radiant heat loss is not insignificant.

Also, it is correct that one cannot technically trap heat being heat is a transfer of energy, but one can indeed trap energy. Plants convert sunlight into sugar thereby “trapping” it; storing sunlight as chemical energy. GHG’s absorb IR (light) into vibrational energy thereby “trapping” the energy; storing IR in vibrational energy. So, even though Mr. Bright-Paul is technically correct it hardly undermines the GHE phenomena being real, substantially evidenced, measurable, and much more than just opinion.

An evidenced based and scientifically sound “skeptical” position:
1) That global warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is a relatively small effect that represents little if any real threat to civilization, global ecology, or me personally.

2) That mitigation of global warming through mandated global emission limitations is untenable.

3) That the “issue” is being presented and examined from the wrong perspective; the problem is world hunger, the solution is increasing atmospheric CO2, the side effect is global warming, deal with the side effects at the local and regional level not by taking away the “cure” for world hunger.

4) I support “no regrets” efforts to mitigate effects of and adapt to climate change at the local and regional level as well as funding research efforts focused on realistic next generation power generation.

Why?
1.1) Doubling atmospheric CO2 increases the average GHE (greenhouse effect) by approximately 3.7 W/m^2. The average GHE is about 333 W/m^2 and varies from less than 100 to over 400 W/m^2. This small increase (~1%) is only capable of producing a very small warming effect (~1°C @ a stretch).
1.2) There’s no credible evidence that feedbacks will amplify CO2 induced warming, in fact real evidence (such as the climate’s reaction to Mt. Pinatubo eruption, daily, seasonal, NH vs. SH temperature response to changes in heat input, paleoclimate sensitivity, etc.) suggests the opposite, a dampening effect.
1.3) The ocean is a massive dynamic heat sink capable of absorbing huge quantities of energy with little (as in barely measurable) change to its characteristics.
1.4) There are various negative feedbacks limiting warming such as cloud formation that tends to cool the surface when temperature thresholds are reached under particular conditions. The temperature record compared to the climate model projections indicate these negative feedbacks amply negate the effect of EGHE.

2.1) Considering the nature of the effects of GW are not globally homogenous due to polar amplification, geological differences, whether patterns, climate, etc.; even if all the worst case scenario’s in the scientific alarm-o-sphere were absolutely true there would still be (as with any change) winners and losers. Siberia and Canada, for example, with their cold climates and steep coasts may be better off in a warmer world. How are the losers going to convince the winners to not emit CO2 into the atmosphere when it benefits them to do so?
2.2) From an ecology perspective the same is true: the alarmists claim polar bears are in trouble and tropical diseases are on the rise; so tropical diseases win. From a purely objective scientific view they shouldn’t be making the moral judgement that polar bears are good and tropical diseases are bad. That’s just an extreme example of course, I’m sure seals wouldn’t mind a few less polar bears around but we never hear about them benefiting from less polar bears due to global warming; especially since polar bears are well equipped to survive warm periods or they wouldn’t have made it through the last interglacial that was significantly warmer than now. So what happens if the seal proponents that don’t particular care for the seal’s main predator figure out that seals are better off in a warmer world, they still promote and sacrifice for keeping the planet at this arbitrarily chosen 2 degrees above pre-industrial?
2.3) Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma. The benefit to a country for gaming the system would be too tempting for some to ignore. Just like VW, some will invariably cheat thereby undermining the effort of the “honest players”. The various trading schemes around the world are already replete with scams and cheats; do you really think individuals, corporations, and countries are going to magically become universally altruistic and everyone will cooperate and sing kumbaya for the next few centuries?
2.4) “The stone age didn’t end for lack of stones.” Similarly, the fossil fuel age will not end due to running out of fossil fuels. Eventually something cheaper and more convenient will be developed and replace fossil fuels whether this be thorium reactors, fusion, gravimetric generators (eh, eh), or something we haven’t even thought of yet is anybody’s guess at this point, but as sure as agriculture replaced hunting and gathering something will replace fossil fuels.
2.5) “Forbidden fruit.” The surest way to make sure people will want something bad enough to break the law to get it is to forbid it.
2.6) “Burning a hole in my pocket.” All that wealth just under the surface and we’re just going to “leave it in the ground”; yea, right.

3.1) Since I was a wee lad the numero uno problem in the world was hunger. Anecdotally, it was a somewhat jokingly unspoken obligatory requirement for every Miss USA/Universe contestant to work in solving world hunger into at least one response during the Q&A period. Until the GW scaremongering took over everyone knew the problem that humanity should solve was world hunger.
3.2) Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases primary production in many parts of the world. We’ve seen world hunger decrease as atmospheric CO2 increase as yields around the world increase in lock step with CO2 fertilization.
3.3) While some places on earth will be harder hit than others by global warming, on average the likely impact will be some inconvenience. Surely, we can take some inconvenience in order to feed the world and support those areas that have to deal with more than an inconvenience to aid them in effects mitigation and adaptation locally and regionally.

4.1) Climate changes. Seas rise and fall. Storms happen. These are facts of life in an enhanced GHE warming world, a fossil fuel aerosol induced cooling world, or pretty much any future world us and our decedents will live in.
4.2) For any particular place on earth the risks due to weather events or other climate impacts are pretty well known and understood (you don’t get hurricanes in Siberia for example). These risks can be mitigated through responsible planning and resource allocation.
4.3) Too often already global warming has been used as an excuse for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and inaction.